An anonymous reader writes: I just came across this article while reading about the latest Windows exploit, and many people being glad they used OpenBSD. It seems that while everybody considers OpenBSD to be the most secure OS around, it is anything but. With the lack of access controls, developers refusing to acknowledge security vulnerabilities and specious claims, it seems that the title of most secure OS is ill fitting. The article makes many good points, and I think it would be good to hear the OpenBSD communities side of the story.

The author has a bee in his bonnet about 'extended access controls' and his criticism could be equally leveled at any UNIX system. OpenBSD has been totally free of kernel level exploits unlike Linux, no access controls are going to help with them. OpenBSD has a very long and very secure history because it's written with correctness and consistency in mind.

SElinux is horrible and I would not wish it or anything like it on the BSD's.

This whole story is just a distraction from the real point that windows is gr

Group policies even on Windows are nothing more than a masquerade used by idiotic admins to pretend they "secured the OS."

In past I was also stumbled at the argument that "*nix sucks because it has nothing like group policies". Later on I have learned (as a system developer) that it is nearly impossible to implement policies properly without horrendous performance impact - and as a user I have learned how easy it is to bypas